Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-9 are presented for examination.
Claims 10-20 and 22 are withdrawn from examination.
The amendments and remarks filed on 01/06/2026 have been received and entered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1, 2, 4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loftsson (US 20030109492) in view of Behmer (Submitted by the applicant).
Loftsson teaches a method for enhancing the aqueous solubility of an active ingredient which is
insoluble or sparingly soluble in water, said active ingredient being a drug, cosmetic additive, food
additive or agrochemical, said method comprising combining said active ingredient with beta.-
cyclodextrin in an aqueous complexation medium, said medium comprising from about 0.1% to about
80% (weight/volume) of beta.-cyclodextrin and from about 0. 1% to about 5% (weight/volume) of a
negatively- or positively-charged compound which forms an inclusion or non-inclusion complex with
beta.-cyclodextrin and its inclusion complexes, said charged compound being acceptable for use in a
pharmaceutical, cosmetic, food or agricultural composition. See Para [0023] and claims. Loftsson
teaches that With regard to agrochemicals, those contemplated for use in this invention include
pesticides (including, for example, insecticides and nematicides), fungicides, herbicides and plant growth regulators. See Para [0059] and claim 21. The use of alpha, beta and gamma cyclodextrin is
taught in claim 23. The use of a sterol, such as cholesterol is taught in claim 28. The determination of optimum proportions or amounts are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Loftsson makes clear that cyclodextrins have been previously used for stabilizing compounds, such as sterols.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to solubilize sterols with cyclodextrins,
motivated by the teachings of Loftsson, which teaches the use of stabilized sterols by cyclodextrins in
agricultural field. Loftsson does not teach wherein the sterol is sequestered by the plant and being transported to the root, stalks and fruit of the plant via the phloem and where the sterol is solubilized by cyclodextrin.
Behmer teaches sterols are sequestered by the plant and are transported via the phloem. See page 489,
column 1, para 1. It would have been obvious to combine Loftsson and Behmer, considering that Loftsson teaches he use of sterols and cyclodextrin in agriculture as old and well known and Behmer teaches sequestering sterols by the plant and transported by the phloem. The transportation to any parts of the plant, such as roots, stalks and fruits, by phloem is the expected property Behmer's teachings.
The relied upon references in combination make clear that sterols which have been encapsulated or
solubilized by cyclodextrin have been previously used in agriculture. Behmer teaches sterols are
sequestered by the plant and are transported via the phloem to the roots and different parts of the
plant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use stabilized and
encapsulated sterols in the method of Behmer in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been noted. Applicant in his remarks argues that “claim 1 does not
require the inclusion of an enzyme or any other component as required by Czap and Loftsson”. It is the examiner’s position that Loftsson does not require the inclusion of enzymes or other components. Gzap has not been relied upon in the instant Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617